MR. SNOW: A number of things to start out. First, today, the President
has been meeting and continues to meet with the Secretary of Defense,
military commanders and senior advisors. This is a follow on to a
recommendation made in July by the Secretary of Defense that the President
have regular 90-minute discussions with military commanders for a
comprehensive review of the security situation in Iraq, and also generally
in the war on terror. So that is what is taking place right now.

Later in the day the President departs to Camp David aboard Marine One.
There will be meetings with the President's economic team tonight and
tomorrow. The economic team will include the Vice President, the Treasury
Secretary, the Commerce Secretary, the Labor Secretary, the Secretary of
HHS, the OMB Director, the White House Chief and Deputy Chief of Staff, Al
Hubbard, David Addington, yours truly, Candi Wolff, Eddie Lazear and Keith
Hennessey, also in attendance.

All right, let's see, a couple of other stories that I'd like just to touch
on, because I know they're top of news, and then we'll go to questions.
First, a couple of things I think that are important to -- by the way, if
we can sort of keep it down in the back. That's been a distraction the
last couple of days, and I'd like to try to make sure that we can all keep
our concentration up.

There were reports that an unnamed military expert had received briefings
at the White House that we are continuing alternatives other than democracy
in Iraq. It's just not true. The article does note, however, that there
has been increased violence in Iraq in recent months, and that is
absolutely true.

I'm sorry, guys, if we can hold it down, it is distracting. This is not as
big as the room used to be. Thank you.

We had testimony from General Abizaid last month; ones of the things he
noticed is, I think he said the sectarian violence had been worse than he'd
ever seen it, and that if trends continued, it could place Iraq on a path
towards civil war. And the peace in The Times I thinks reflects some of
the thinking that went into that. On the other hand, there are
developments also subsequent to the third of August, I think, which was the
named date of a memo that had been obtained.

A couple of things are probably worth noting. Number one, there is
coalition presence throughout the country, but also the training up of
Iraqi forces, which have become increasingly nimble and capable. I
mentioned yesterday there had been outbreaks of violence that have been
handled solely by Iraqi forces in three different parts of the nation,
including Najaf and Basra, within the last week or so.

Iraqi Arabs also, as I stressed, retain a strong sense of nationhood, and
many people in Iraq still remember a time when sectarianism was not, in
fact, a guiding feature or a significant feature of Iraqi life. No major
political figure in Iraq has described the situation as a civil war or
advocated one, and as a matter of fact, the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and
other Shia leaders, in fact, have played a very prominent and welcomed role
in trying to restrain Shia response to some of the sectarian violence.

The administration continues, though, to take a very close and candid look
at what's going on. The security situation in some places is uneven, and
it's clear that there are huge challenges that await us. The military
commanders have been trying to reshape and retool operations, especially in
the Baghdad area, and they've yielded some fruit.

I mentioned yesterday the previously violent Dura neighborhood. Let me
just give you some of the stats I've received -- and these are about a week
old now, but they give you a sense of what's going on -- more than 5,000
U.S. and Iraqi forces were involved in an operation that took violence down
by more than 80 percent in Dura. Since the operations began the number of
murders dropped to zero. It's the same neighborhood where there were, in
some cases, 20 murders a day.

They cleared more than 3,000 buildings; they arrested 22 detainees; they
seized weapons. There was an AP story that came out yesterday, I think you
probably saw, that talked about Amariyah and a five-day sweep that had
similar results. I don't want to be claiming that violence no longer is a
fact of life in Iraq because it is. But on the other hand, there are
continued efforts to try to be effective throughout the region.

Some other things as you look at stories ahead to think about: As
coalition forces, as U.S. and Iraqi forces become more effective in
neighborhoods in Baghdad, you can expect some members of al Qaeda in Iraq
and also insurgent groups to filter elsewhere, and especially to test out
the fitness of Iraqi forces. This will sort of parallel what we saw in
Afghanistan, when you saw a transition of forces from U.S. to other forces.
So that is likely to happen. We anticipate that.

Second story -- and this is also important -- actually, a couple of stories
about what's going on in Lebanon. I thought I'd give you a quick update
there. There were reports that senior members of the Lebanese government
had said that Lebanon would not disarm Hezbollah. I mentioned yesterday to
you the fact that Prime Minister Siniora would be giving an address to the
nation. Well, he has delivered that address, he did it last night, and I
thought I'd read out some of the key points, because it's counter of the
stories that the Lebanese government says it won't disarm Hezbollah.

First, the Prime Minister reiterated that "a strong and democratic state is
the biggest victory we as Lebanese can achieve." He also said that Lebanon
will never be made into, "an arena for regional and international
conflicts." He reiterated his nation's government -- his government to
extending and implementing the Taif Accord, his own seven-point plan, and
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, and also the other U.N. Security
Council resolutions that well, as he put it, would extend state
sovereignty, "over the entire homeland." He said that, "No areas will
remain closed to the army," and that's important, because I think part of
the reporting was indicating that Lebanese officials had said that they
would sort of wink and nod and pay no attention to what Hezbollah had done.
And he said there would be, "no armed manifestations outside state
authorities." "Weapons should be held only by the state." Again, this is
the Prime Minister speaking to the Lebanese populace.

In terms of the U.N. Security Council resolution, 1701 does not directly
call for disarmament, but it does refer back to U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1559 that does. However, there may be a follow on resolution,
there has been discussion, if necessary, of coming up with more specific
plans, either by resolution or joint planning, to demilitarize the southern
part of the nation, that is demilitarize other than duly constituted
authorities. And as I said yesterday, Lebanon will have to take the lead
role, and we'll get some assistance from the United Nations forces, but
Lebanon will have to do it.

We also understand that the Lebanese government, which has not had a
significant presence in the south for 30 years, is going to have to take
time to reestablish links and bonds with the Lebanese people. But again,
the ultimate goal of the process is Lebanon, under the authority of a
sovereign and elected government. Those are just a couple of the basic
stories I wanted to make sure that I gave you sort of a readout on. I know
there are others, and we'll take questions now.

Terry.

Q Do you think that Lebanon is fulfilling the U.N. resolution or is even
making a good faith effort to fulfill the U.N. resolution?

MR. SNOW: Beginning to, yes. When you're talking about taking 15,000
Lebanese armed forces, troops and moving them into the south, that is
something that's called for. It has been agreed upon by the government.
But again, we're not expecting overnight results. We understand that this
is something that is going to take time. But it is important to realize
that there has been a commitment on the part of the Lebanese government
eventually to regain control over the entire countryside. And that does
include disarming Hezbollah.

Now, Hezbollah can do it of choice. We certainly hope that's the case. As
the President said the other day, you can't be an organization and have one
foot in politics and one in terror. You got to make a choice, and we hope
they make the political choice.

Q And could I ask you on Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Does -- the military commanders that the President is meeting with,
are these the same military commanders that he's going to listen to for
recommendations on troop strength? That level?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it includes General Casey and General Abizaid.

Q So do you expect any kind of recommendation -- the President to hear
recommendations from Casey and Abizaid about where to go in troop levels?

MR. SNOW: I suspect it would come up, but I don't know. I'm not sitting
in on the room. It's a highly restricted meeting for obvious reasons. But
the President does take advice from them, and when you're getting a
comprehensive review, one of the questions that's going to come up is, what
do we need? The President has always said that that's the first question
he asks his commanders, and I suspect it will arise today.

Q There seems to be a subtle change in tone. When this conflict between
Hezbollah and Israel first erupted, the President was forceful in saying,
we must address the root cause. And here you're sort of saying, hopefully
Lebanon will deal with disarming Hezbollah. There seems to be a backing
off.

MR. SNOW: No, no, and I'm glad you asked, because, no, I don't want to
give the impression that there's backing off. You've got to address the
root cause. And let's walk through that a little bit. You've got to
remember how this all began. Hezbollah declared war on Israel, in effect;
it fired rockets, it crossed over a border, it kidnapped soldiers. That's
an act of war. Israel responded, in terms of its self-defense.

Now what's going to happen, I think, is it will -- Hezbollah will be forced
into making a choice, because I think people in Lebanon kind of get it. I
mean, they understand that many of those areas have been laid to waste
because Hezbollah committed an act of war. They understand that Hezbollah
-- I'm sorry, I'll let you -- you can interrupt when I'm done with this.
But they understand the deep cynicism of Hezbollah, which didn't do this as
an act of liberation for the people or Lebanon; it wasn't designed in any
way, shape, or form to improve the life of the Lebanese people. And
terrorist organizations look upon human life as something that's
dispensable, that's disposable. And as a matter of fact, from time to
time, they will actually create this sort of photographic carnival of the
carnage by going out and inviting people in and staging scenes.

This is not the way in which you enhance the dignity of people who have
been victimized. And we are deeply conscious of the terrible human cost
that has already been wrought.

Q But many people on the ground in Lebanon do not view Hezbollah in
those terms.

MR. SNOW: You know, a lot of people do. I mean, I don't know which people
on the ground. Again, it's very difficult to assess. The conventional
wisdom is that Hezbollah is suddenly popular. I don't think -- you can
think about people's self-interest. You have a group that you know has
been going in and operating independently in a rogue fashion. It declares
war on a neighbor. There is a response. This group says, we are going to
continue to do it. Now, if you're a victim of that, you had no party in
that, you are not likely to be very happy about it. If you understand that
what is going on is that people are being held hostage for political or
ideological reasons to a group that is beholden not to the people of
Lebanon, but to the governments of Iran and Syria, sooner or later they're
going to say to themselves, this is not a good deal for me. And so that's
part of it.

Also, it's important to understand that in all of this, Hezbollah does have
a choice to make. I know that one of the new tactics, and we're seeing
this with Hamas, we've seen it with Hezbollah, we've seen it with al Qaeda
now, this is an emerging tactic, which is, commit acts of terror, try to
get people to fight against each other, and set up a charitable foundation
to hand out cash and crumbs to the victims. While that may be an attempt
to make some sort of PR advantage, but in the long run we would hope that
Hezbollah and all parties would, in fact, work toward having a sovereign
government whose decisions would be respected and whose autonomy and
authority would be respected by Hezbollah and all parties.

So this -- you have to address the root cause, which is that Hezbollah,
operating independently, decided it could declare an act of war. It did so
in complete independence and defiance -- well, I don't know that the
government was informed, so you can't be defiant, but completely
independently of the government of Lebanon -- and as a result, has, in
fact, caused great carnage and damage to the country.

Let me also say that the United States not only has been deeply aware and
conscious of this, today the United States helped open up a corridor not
only humanitarian, but also in terms of commercial traffic between the
Rafiq Hariri International Airport in Beirut and also the airport in Amman,
Jordan -- that with the help of the Jordanian and the Israeli governments,
we've been working to open up humanitarian corridors, and we consider it
absolutely essential to ramp up humanitarian and reconstruction aid within
Lebanon.

I know it's a long answer, but there are a lot of facets to the question.

Bill.

Q It seems, though, that when you come out here and make a preemptive
statement that there is no agreement not to disarm Hezbollah that you're
flying in the face of the evidence on the ground. You know, for example,
that politics in the Middle East is deliberately ambiguous much of the
time. There is no indication that, in fact, the Lebanese government is
going to force Hezbollah to give up its arms. Your preemptive statement
this morning seems based on the belief that they should, and that the
interests of the people will force it. But there's nothing on the ground
and nothing in past history to suggest that that would ever be the case.

MR. SNOW: Well, there are a couple of things on the ground. You have the
movement of 15,000 troops into the region.

Q So?

MR. SNOW: Well, that's something. Now, perhaps you've been talking to
people directly on the ground there, and have a better read out. But we're
now talking about an agreement that is several days old. And if you're
expecting, Bill, for there to be dramatic new things and people sort of
running out to the village square and dropping off their Kalashnikovs,
we're not quite there yet.

Q No, but this just strikes me as -- someone once said in a far
different context that the triumph of "hope over experience."

MR. SNOW: Yes. However, that was Winston Churchill talking about second
marriages. (Laughter.)

Q I believe it was Samuel Johnson.

MR. SNOW: Samuel Johnson speaking -- absolutely right, thank you, it was
Samuel Johnson. So Dr. Johnson speaking of second marriages. It's a
clever quote. (Laughter.) This is great. No, it's always good to get
corrected.

Look, there is going to be -- there is not only a considerable amount of
hope, but determination. You're absolutely right. Hezbollah is going to
play a very important role in determining what happens here, because if the
situation doesn't change, you're still going to have the same root cause.
You're going to still have the same possibility of unrest in the region,
and that's a real concern. And so you have to figure out every possible
way -- at this point, every possible and peaceable way to place enough
pressure on Hezbollah and also to empower the Lebanese people so it doesn't
happen again. But, yes, absolutely, we do hope that it works.

Q Earlier you said that violence is down 80 percent in one Baghdad
neighborhood. John McCain has complained about a whack-a-mole taking place
across the -- cross-country -- you've heard of that.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q It seems like it's whack-a-mole now on the local level because by all
accounts Baghdad is -- by most accounts, Baghdad is worse than it's ever
been, as far as the security situation. So how is this not whack-a-mole on
the local level?

MR. SNOW: Well, let me ask you a question. Is every time that we have a
success going to be called whack-a-mole? Because if that's the case -- no,
I think what you have now is we had to retool Operation Together Forward.
It wasn't producing the desired results. I'm not saying that suddenly
everything is sunny and helpful and bright, but I am saying that you do
have some successes. And it's quantifiable, and you can call Major General
Caldwell or others in Baghdad and they'll give you all the good numbers on
this stuff. But there has been progress. But there's a lot to be done.

The fact is, yes, al Qaeda is going to scatter and run, and there's going
to be the need to pursue them. Now, in response to that, what have we been
doing? We've been training up Iraq forces. We've also been chasing down
al Qaeda independently. And so it is not as if it's a static situation
where we just have a bunch of people here. We have people who are
gathering intelligence throughout the country, both U.S., Iraqi -- all
three and coalition forces, and they are responding.

So Senator McCain, I'm sure, will get fully briefed on the latest
developments, and I'll let him give his own assessment in the future.
There's always the danger that you think that you're chasing around an
elusive enemy. And there's no doubt that some guys are going to run and
hide and try out something else.

What they have been finding out is that the Iraqi forces which have been
standing up are becoming more capable and more combat-ready and more able
to address this. The United States, in and of itself, cannot be chasing
all over Iraq for each and every piece of insurrection. That is
inappropriate.

But what we are doing is we're trying to target resources and operations in
such a way as to go after the key sources of terror and secure some of the
key places. I think Senator McCain would agree -- in fact, I believe he
said as much, you've got to secure Baghdad.

Q One more briefly, I know you don't do book reviews, but more people
are reading now, Fiasco, by Tom Ricks, a well-respected reporter in this
town. And he says that mistakes -- civilian mistakes not only fueled the
insurgency, but led -- might have even spawned it. With so many people
reading it, do you have any reaction?

MR. SNOW: A lot of people are reading Tim Russert's book, too. It's nice
that people are reading.

Go ahead, Helen.

Q After a week of soul-searching -- I mean, not soul-searching -- I mean
briefings the President has had, has he done any soul searching in terms of
policy towards Iraq? The highest fatalities in July and so forth, so there
is an increase in violence. Are any policies changing?

MR. SNOW: Well, I've tried to -- the answer is first without -- I will --
without having cleared this with the President, I think it's safe to say
that any President in a time of war does constant soul-searching because he
understands the human toll of sending people into harm's way. And any
President who has held the office will tell you the same thing. It is a
deeply personal and very difficult thing to do.

The other thing the President does is -- he wants realistic assessments of
what's going on, and he wants the ability to adjust. It is an absolute
fact that, in a time of war, you're going to try things that don't work.
And what you have to do is to figure out how to define the proper
formulation of things that are going to work.

The President is not going to walk away from Iraq. It is central to
winning the war on terror. It is central to sending a message to terrorist
organizations. It is central to creating a democracy in the region.

Q Willing to sacrifice?

MR. SNOW: Well, as they continue to exhume and now put together exhibits
in Iraq of the hundreds of thousands who were killed by Saddam Hussein,
there is still the hope that was expressed by more than 12.5 million people
who went out and voted at some risk to their lives, but they think it's
worthwhile.

And if we could do this in a totally bloodless way, that would be great,
but terrorists, as I pointed out before, they look at human carnage as a
political asset. We look at it the different way. We mourn the loss of
lives. We don't look at that as a way of advancing our ideology. We look
upon every human life as possessing unique and independent dignity, and we
wish that none of them had to be sacrificed, and we hope that we're
precisely working toward the day in which you're not going to have to worry
about mass graves in Iraq, where you're not going to have to worry about
sectarian violence, and that the primary concern is whether their taxes are
too high and whether they're getting what they need from their government.

Jennifer -- Jessica. This is a bad day.

Q If that's the only name you call me, I'll be very happy. The U.S.'s
closest ally in its Middle-East policy is Britain. The man who's filling
in for Tony Blair while he's on vacation, the Deputy Prime Minister there,
may have said in a meeting -- used an expletive to describe the President's
work on the Middle East road map, and called him a cowboy in a Stetson hat
who's not just doing the job. Any reaction to those comments? And also,
more broadly, how concerned is the President that in Britain there is
plummeting public support for the U.S. position and Blair's alliance with
Bush on Mideast policy?

MR. SNOW: Well, the President talks regularly with Prime Minister Blair,
who is the Prime Minister, so I will restrict my comments to Prime Minister
Blair. And Prime Minister Blair understands, just as the President does,
wars create anxiety. And he understands that that is an unpopular thing.
People don't like to be anxious, they don't like to worry about it. On the
other hand, we've just come through a week where the British people were
reminded, along with the Americans and Pakistanis, that terrorists are
simply not going to stand down because there's anxiety. As a matter of
fact, they seem to take some encouragement for plummeting popularity,
thinking that maybe the United States and the Brits and others are going to
let down their guard.

Prime Minister Blair has made it clear: he is going to remain a firm ally
to the United States in the war on terror. And both the Prime Minister and
the President have taken some hits in the polls, but again, they still see
their primary obligation as protecting national security. So the President
has been called a lot worse, and I suspect will be. And there will be
piquant names sort of hurled his way from time to time, but that's part of
the burden of leadership.

Q Can I follow on Helen's question? Does the President go through any
soul-searching when he hears -- yes, Tony Blair supports him, but when he
hears there's such little public support overseas for his positions -- does
that cause soul-searching?

MR. SNOW: Again, you keep asking me these existential questions about
whether the President is sort of -- well, he is concerned. But the other
thing is there is real -- you can't be a President in a time of war without
soul-searching. It's just not possible. But on the other hand, you also
cannot be a President in a wartime and not realize that you've got to stay
the course.

Let me direct you back again, all the talk about the greatest generation --
in every previous war, there have been times where there have been
difficulties and people said, it's not worth the cost. And it's been true
in every major engagement in our history. And yet, you've had leaders who
understand that the cost is something that you have to bear, and not
happily, but in order to achieve your objectives. The President
understands that. And the objective here is ultimately to spread freedom
and democracy around the globe, but also to go after terrorists.

Terrorists spread across the globe have made it perfectly obvious, it
doesn't matter what we do or say. They don't care. And so you have to
find a way not merely to go after what they're doing, but also to
discourage anybody who would follow them, either through a combination of
force, diplomacy, or creation of hope. And those are the things that the
United States government continues to do.

So the President thinks about these things every day. Again, this is -- he
sees stuff far more horrifying than you and I see, because he gets the
briefings every day. And it is impossible to be a President in a time of
war without being reminded of the nature of the threat and also the cost of
fighting it.

Steve.

Q You said that alternative democracy in Iraq weren't being considered.
Have they been discussed in any shape or form?

MR. SNOW: I'm not aware of that. I mean, I've never heard it, as far as I
know -- no.

Q I wonder how this came up?

MR. SNOW: You'll have to ask the guys who wrote it. I don't know.

Q But beyond soul-searching, is the President contemplating changes in
policy? To follow on what Helen was saying, because you have these 21
retired generals, diplomats and others today sending an open letter to the
President saying they do want a dramatic shift in that policy. You said
again a moment ago, stay the course. You could still achieve your
objectives maybe with a different course. Is he considering a policy
change?

MR. SNOW: The President always considers changes of course. I've already
talked about what goes on in Baghdad. But --

Q Such as what? What would be one policy change he's contemplating in
Iraq?

MR. SNOW: What they've already done is they've restructured Operation
Together Forward. Now, if you -- we're not going to move our forces to the
Philippines, halfway across the globe and use that as a "staging area."
The United States is going to remain engaged, but also remain engaged in
the business of trying to train up Iraqi forces.

You know, you understand in a political year people are going to make
political statements, including retired generals, and they're perfectly
welcome to. It's an important addition to the public debate. But we're
also -- the President is a guy who has got real responsibility here. Now,
I've got to tell you, just given to what I said to Jessica -- not Jennifer
-- in response to the sort of ongoing cost of promoting freedom around the
globe, do you not think a President will do everything in his power to
succeed? And the answer is, yes. He's not sitting around saying, boy, I'm
stubborn, I'm going to stick with it. That's not the way the President is.

Q But every time a new policy comes up, whether it's an alternative to
democracy, like today, The New York Times, you say he's not considering
that. So what change is he considering --

MR. SNOW: Well, wait, an alternative to --

Q You're saying, in general, he's always considering changes. And we
ask for a specific one, you don't have one.

MR. SNOW: Well, but you regard a change -- you regard wholesale throwing
away of the policy as a change.

Q I didn't advocate that.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, tell me what you have in mind for a change. Tell me
what's in mind for a change.

Q I don't know what they are, I'm not the President. I'm saying, what
is he considering? What is he -- everything that's thrown up that
supposedly he's contemplating -- that's mentioned in The New York Times or
anywhere -- you shoot down and say he's not contemplating that. And then
in the next breath you say he's always soul-searching, he's always
contemplating change.

MR. SNOW: Right, well, number one, people who are apparently in credible
battlefield positions are not making the same judgments as retired generals
who write group letters. And they may have different facts available to
them. But, A, for obvious reasons, I'm not going to tell you about
contemplated changes other than in a general fashion, because to do so lays
out the road map of our intentions and our goals, and places American lives
at risk and the overall mission in jeopardy.

However, for those of us who have seen the President behind the scenes, he
doesn't sit around and ask for people to put on rose-colored glasses; he
wants to know exactly what's going on and how to get the mission done. I
will go back again to the simple matter of duty and also personal interest.
You want to make sure that what's you're -- you're making every effort to
do it and to do it right. And the President is open to advice and he has
tasked his chief military officers to do it and he listens to them. And
he's made that point many times.

And many of these options may at some point have been discussed, but the
fact that they have been discarded doesn't mean that the President is
resistant to change; it means that he didn't think that that was the proper
way to change.

Jim.

Q Well, I think what everyone is reacting to is that there's been a lot
of writing from war supporters that there needs to be a change, and clearly
this is driven by the violence that we're seeing out of Baghdad, and some
of these writings from the biggest supporters of the invasion, they've been
advocating an increase in forces, a major increase in forces -- not from
one place to another, but a re-upping. And in this political year, is it
politically feasible to increase troops by November -- will the party --

MR. SNOW: If it's the right --

Q -- and will the President do it, if the generals say, you need a major
increase --

MR. SNOW: The President has made it clear, if the generals make the
recommendation and they say they need it, they're going to get it. And I
don't know how many times I have to say it, but I'll keep reiterating, the
political angle really matters less to him than his obligations and solemn
responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief. You've got to get that right. I
mean, that is his absolute objective. And so, it's simply -- if somebody
says, sir, you're going to get a real political bounce if you detail
another 30,000 -- if that is not what the generals have asked, that's not
what's going to happen. Similarly, if somebody says, you'll get a real
political bounce if you pull out 30,000, and that's not what the generals
have requested, it's not going to happen.

Q But to follow up, there is this assessment coming out -- especially
supporters now saying we need to up the troop level --

MR. SNOW: I understand --

Q -- that's how we control Iraq, so what is -- is that a misperception
on the part of the people who want --

MR. SNOW: Let me get back to -- I used the phrase yesterday which is -- I
said the President has strategic patience. There is a lot of impatience
right now because you have violence in Baghdad -- you have the sectarian
violence, recently described by General Abizaid as the worst he'd seen.
You can understand at a time like that, when you also have ongoing
hostilities that recently have ended in the Middle East, when you have
comments coming out of Tehran and Damascus, you understand at a time like
that that there's going to be some impatience, people want things to be
solved quickly; so does the President. But sometimes these things don't
happen overnight.

You have to look for the right use of forces, in combination with policies
that not only are going to solve the immediate problem, but also address
the issues that gave rise to it, so that you don't have to fight this war
again, so that you don't have to fight these battles again. That is the
chief challenge. That's the way he looks at it.

Peter.

Q Tony, you mentioned, the obvious ultimate goal of getting mission
accomplished. When is that going to happen?

MR. SNOW: You tell me. I mean, again -- as I've also said, you don't do
this by a clock. The President has practiced strategic patience. The term
"The Long War" has been used. If you can tell me when terrorists are
suddenly going to turn their swords into plowshares, we'll settle upon that
as the date.

MR. SNOW: Same way we've always defined it, which is when you have an
Iraqi government able to sustain itself, defend itself, and govern itself.
That has been the clearly stated objective of the President over and over.
That's how you do it. I mean those are the metrics you're going to have to
use. We're seeing some -- we now have an Iraq that has begun to govern
itself through a government that involves parties from all over the
country. We've seen increased ability to defend itself, but we are by no
means there. Sustain itself also means that you've addressed the terror
and sectarian factions where people are trying to make sure that their
government fails.

John.

Q Back on Lebanon, you mentioned the possibility of a follow-on
resolution or joint planning.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q -- for demilitarization. I guess I'm wondering how imminent that
might be, how likely it is that either one of those would come off, and
also, who would be involved in the joint planning.

MR. SNOW: Well, at this point, let's first see how -- I'm going to kick
the can down the road. Let me just be frank with you because we have to
see what's going to be happening right now in this -- we put together the
UNIFIL forces, and they started going in through different parts of
Lebanon, and I think you have to see how that works to figure out how
people make adjustments, if they're necessary or not. So I added those
qualifiers just in case they do become necessary, don't know that they
will.

Q The budget deficit: CBO estimate out today says, Yes, it's coming
down to $260 billion this year, but then will jump to $286 billion next
year. And then over the next decade, the total deficit will be $1.76
trillion, even if the tax cuts aren't made permanent. Aren't things going
in the wrong direction with the President?

MR. SNOW: No, I'll tell you --

Q As he talks to his economic advisors, is he looking at spending cuts
or tax increases to close the gap?

MR. SNOW: The answer is the President is working on keeping the economy
growing, and the other thing is, go back and take a look at CBO estimates
from last year or the year before. Go back to the Clinton years. It's an
inexact science, and I'm not going to get into that whole methodology.

The President is confident that we remain on a path to cut the deficit in
half by his stated deadline, if not before, and the way you do that is by
promoting government growth. The deficit declined in the '90s because we
had a booming economy, and as the economy continues to boom, you're going
to find revenues coming in and enabling us to close the deficit. The
President still believes that.

Q So is the CBO wrong in projecting that the deficit will increase next
year?

MR. SNOW: Who knows? The problem with it, it's like asking if the
weatherman is right about next Tuesday. Economic prediction is always
inexact. You use this as benchmarks for guiding policy. As you know we do
our own estimates, and I'll stick with the OMB estimates. And I will let
our number crunching guys, our econometricians go through the methodologies
with you. I'm just not competent to do so.

Q Tony, several pro-life groups have called on the President to withdraw
von Eschenbach's nomination to head the FDA. They're concerned about his
position on this Plan B abortion -- birth control plan. First of all, does
the President stand by the nomination? And secondly, what is the
President's view on that Plan B controversy?

MR. SNOW: Honestly, I don't know. I won't fake it. I'll get an answer
for you.*

April.

Q North Korea. The President of the Republic of Korea visits the White
House next month, in part to talk about the six-party talks. Chinese
officials are upset over the stalled talks. They feel the United States
should be dealing with the issue of long-range ballistic missiles versus
the issue of money laundering.

MR. SNOW: In other words, what you're saying is we should not be dealing
with money laundering, we should be dealing with long range -- okay, go
ahead.

Q What are the thoughts there? And especially as they're saying that
the President, himself, will also have to put his hands in the mix
personally when they deal with the issue of money --

MR. SNOW: Look, we appreciate the help the Chinese have given us, and we
look forward to more help. They have considerable leverage over what goes
on in North Korea, not merely by virtue of being a neighbor, but also of
having the most extensive economic and energy ties with the government of
North Korea. But our position is pretty clear, you got to do both. And we
have already gone after counterfeiting activities on the part of the
government of North Korea. But at the same time, the whole point of the
six-party talks is to find some way to create a non-nuclear Korean
Peninsula.

The two are not exclusive aims, and the United States has not simply been
going after one goal, but in fact, we've been trying to figure out ways to
reintegrate the North Koreans into -- or to integrate North Korea with the
civilized world. And the way we've done that is to say, come to the
six-party talks, let's figure out a way to do this. If in fact we move to
the nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, then there are a lot of good things that
can happen, including all of these things. The Chinese know the point, and
we stand by our policy.

Q But, Tony, if it is, indeed, about this threat, about these long-range
ballistic missiles, why not make it about that, instead of dealing with
another issue that you could solve the problem?

MR. SNOW: I believe we're confusing issues. What's happened is the North
Koreans have walked away because they're doing money laundering to finance
global terror. We don't want them to have money to finance global terror.
Sorry, period. We don't think it's in our interest to allow them to be
selling weapons that could be used to destroy innocent human lives. But
the point on the six-party talks has been precisely to deal not merely with
long-range weapons, but the ability to put nukes on top of them. And that
is of mutual interest to both parties. So you're really talking about two
different things.

The North Koreans -- at this point, the North Koreans are trying to stall
everything out so they can have the ability to do counterfeiting activities
to support terror. As President of the United States, the President simply
cannot say, okay, we'll wave that off. Instead, it's important -- and in
the six-party talks, our allies have been helpful on this -- to stand
together and say to the North Koreans, you got to behave.

Q Going back to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q You said that he gave support to the war in Iraq because they were
promised the road map. And if we look at the situation in the Palestinian
territories right now, it's not good. It could possibly be argued, could
it not, that he has a point, that, in fact -- not so much that where we are
is the word that he used, but the situation is not great?

MR. SNOW: Well, Victoria, I think as the President's noted on a number of
occasions, we're getting pretty close. It was pretty clear that there were
some discussions between the Olmert government and President Abbas moving
toward the road map, and all of a sudden what do you get? You get a
kidnapping by Hamas. And then it looked like they were getting close to a
resolution, and you have a Hezbollah attack. It seems clear that there is
a desire on the part of most Palestinians to have a democratic state, and
Israel certainly wants to have democratic states side by side.

I'm loath to characterize the situation with an adjective because these are
awfully fluid situations, and a lot of times suddenly, in what seemed
moments of desperation, amazing things happened. I'm not promising that.
I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I do think it's important to
realize that again, snap characterizations, or maybe even considered
characterizations seem to indicate that we can't walk and chew gum at the
same time, and the United States has been fully engaged on all of these
issues. And we'll remain so because we do believe that creating an
effective Palestinian democracy is absolutely essential to creating
democracy in the region and in fighting the larger war on terror. And we
remain committed to the road map and have been committed to the road map.
And we've been working with our partners in that.

The Quartet remains active in trying to make sure that we have the
conditions for peace in the region. Again, you always have the ability of
terrorists to try to disrupt things, and they will continue to try to do
so.

But we will continue working so that ultimately we're not taking our eye
off the goal. We're not going to be deterred by these. We understand that
this is kind of skirmish warfare that terrorists are going to try to do to
throw people off the tracks. But as long as all the parties are committed
to creating the road map and going ahead and pursuing a road to
independence and democracy on the part of the Palestinians, I think
ultimately we're going to get there.

Q Just going back to Hezbollah?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Hezbollah are rebuilding south Lebanon, and the people in south
Lebanon are very grateful for that. They're receiving apparently what they
need, and they seem to be receiving what they need. They also feel,
apparently, that Israel and the United States are responsible for what
happened to them. Now, even though we are giving money, we're not seen to
be giving money. The Saudis are not seen to be giving money. What, in
fact, can we do to change that perception, given that perception of us is
already negative?

MR. SNOW: Well, a few of us probably ought to spend some time in southern
Lebanon talking to people. I mean there are lots of perceptions right now.

The other thing is, we're talking about a peace accord that is less than a
week old. Let's see how things shake out. I mean look, we're also going
to keep a careful eye on what's going on, but perceived or not perceived,
the United States is still committed not only to creating the conditions
for peace, but also the conditions for a decent life on behalf of the
Lebanese people by supplying humanitarian aid now, reconstruction aid
later.

But we're talking about quick impressions at an emotional time, and
understandably so. And I think we're all going to have to keep an eye on
it. Let's see where it stands in a month or two.

Q Thank you, Tony. I have two questions for you. During an interview
with Mike Wallace on Sunday, the President of Iran seemed to imply that he
was willing to engage in direct talks with the United States. Would the
President Bush -- would President Bush consider such thoughts --

MR. SNOW: Okay. I'm going to cut you off.

Q -- at the Foreign Minister's level?

MR. SNOW: The President has already made it clear that the way forward
with the Iranians is very simple: Renounce the enrichment and
reprocessing-related activities, and we'll talk. That hasn't changed.

Q Will the President allow officials to arrest an illegal alien while
she was taking refuge in a Chicago church?

MR. SNOW: You're getting into sanctuary law, and I'm not prepared to
answer it. I'm just unfamiliar with the situation.

Q Can you tell us a little bit more about why the President wants to
meet with his economic team tomorrow?

MR. SNOW: Again, this is an annual deal and so this is part of the annual
meetings with advisors. We've seen it -- we've had Defense and State;
we've had the counterterror, and we'll have the economic meeting. Again,
go back and look at something that happens -- but I'll tell you, part of --
one of the reasons you'll want to meet is you've got an economic record
where we've had sustained growth, sustained job growth; we're beginning to
see wage growth; we're beginning to see some moderation of inflation in the
face of really significant energy price increases, of which the President
is deeply aware and wants to find ways of addressing.

And so you look at ways to try to make sure that there is continued
economic growth at a time where we're getting to a point that economists
think are pretty close to full employment. You see every month employment
numbers are growing, and we have good employment numbers once again. But
on the other hand, it's still important to keep creating opportunities for
people that want to enter the job market. What we saw last month were more
people who had been on the sidelines going in and looking for jobs. We
want to make sure everybody gets off the sidelines and that there are
opportunities for everybody, but that's what every President wants to do.

Q Do you tell us any specific agenda items that will actually be
discussed?

MR. SNOW: No, because I haven't actually looked at the agenda yet. I
mean, we'll get up there. But you can take a look at the participants, and
I think what you're likely to get, at least if it follows what we've had
this week, are briefings on where we stand and where we need to go. And
you've got the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor, you've got the Treasury
Secretary, you've got the HHS Secretary. You've got a lot of people who
are going to be able to talk of components that have to do with economic
growth.

Again, I don't want to fib and pretend that I've seen the whole thing, but
you can sort of connect the dots there.

Q And just lastly, I assume they'll be talking about some of the
legislation on the Hill. Does the President support an increase in the
minimum wage?

MR. SNOW: The formulation we have used is he supports an increase in the
minimum wage that won't come at the expense of jobs.

Q Thank you.

END 11:36 A.M. EDT

*Q Tony, several pro-life groups have called on the President to withdraw
von Eschenbach's nomination to head the FDA. They're concerned about his
position on this Plan B abortion -- birth control plan. First of all, does
the President stand by the nomination?
A President Bush continues to strongly support Dr. von Eschenbach's
nomination.
Q And secondly, what is the President's view on that Plan B controversy?
A It is an FDA decision, and the FDA is working with Barr Labs to ensure
it is done in a way that prohibits over the counter distribution to minors
and establishes other protections.